Search (31 results, page 1 of 2)

0.022141643 = product of:
  0.06642493 = sum of:
    0.06642493 = sum of:
      0.018938582 = weight(_text_:of in 5196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.018938582 = score(doc=5196,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 5196, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5196)
      0.047486346 = weight(_text_:22 in 5196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047486346 = score(doc=5196,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5196, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5196)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Will traditional forms of communication seamlessly migrate to the Web? Liew, Foo, and Chennupati report that the top-ranked features of e-journals are those not available in paper journals: querying, navigation, and visualization.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.1, S.22-35

0.018134935 = product of:
  0.054404803 = sum of:
    0.054404803 = sum of:
      0.018790042 = weight(_text_:of in 5920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.018790042 = score(doc=5920,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 5920, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5920)
      0.03561476 = weight(_text_:22 in 5920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03561476 = score(doc=5920,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5920, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5920)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), a system originally designed as a tool for subject access to the Library's own collection in the late nineteenth century, has become, in the course of the last century, the main subject retrieval tool in library catalogs throughout the United States and in many other countries. It is one of the largest non-specialized controlled vocabularies in the world. As LCSH enters a new century, it faces an information environment that has undergone vast changes from what had prevailed when LCSH began, or, indeed, from its state in the early days of the online age. In order to continue its mission and to be useful in spheres outside library catalogs as well, LCSH must adapt to the multifarious environment. One possible approach is to adopt a series of scalable and flexible syntax and application rules to meet the needs of different user communities

Date

27. 5.2001 16:22:21

Source

The LCSH century: one hundred years with the Library of Congress Subject Headings system. Ed.: A.T.Stone

0.01775607 = product of:
  0.053268205 = sum of:
    0.053268205 = sum of:
      0.01171765 = weight(_text_:of in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.01171765 = score(doc=114,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.17103596 = fieldWeight in 114, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=114)
      0.041550554 = weight(_text_:22 in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041550554 = score(doc=114,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 114, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=114)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper explores cataloging in the Age of Google. It considers what the technologies now being adopted mean for cataloging in the future. The author begins by exploring how digital-era students do research-they find using Google easier than using libraries. Mass digitization projects now are bringing into question the role that library cataloging has traditionally performed. The author asks readers to consider if the detailed attention librarians have been paying to descriptive cataloging can still be justified, and if cost-effective means for access should be considered.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.011871587 = product of:
  0.03561476 = sum of:
    0.03561476 = product of:
      0.07122952 = sum of:
        0.07122952 = weight(_text_:22 in 4204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07122952 = score(doc=4204,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4204, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4204)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 2.2003 12:25:38

0.00979356 = product of:
  0.02938068 = sum of:
    0.02938068 = product of:
      0.05876136 = sum of:
        0.05876136 = weight(_text_:22 in 1423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05876136 = score(doc=1423,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.38301262 = fieldWeight in 1423, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1423)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 2.2008 13:28:00

Source

Zeitschrift für Bibliothekswesen und Bibliographie. 55(2008) H.1, S.18-22

0.00979356 = product of:
  0.02938068 = sum of:
    0.02938068 = product of:
      0.05876136 = sum of:
        0.05876136 = weight(_text_:22 in 3017) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05876136 = score(doc=3017,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.38301262 = fieldWeight in 3017, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3017)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 7.2009 13:22:50

0.0047346456 = product of:
  0.014203936 = sum of:
    0.014203936 = product of:
      0.028407872 = sum of:
        0.028407872 = weight(_text_:of in 714) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028407872 = score(doc=714,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.41465375 = fieldWeight in 714, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=714)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

A synthesis of some of the themes and ideas developed in a recently published book about the future of information: i in the sky: visions of the information future. Common themes included: problems in defining information and defining future time-scales, the ubiquity of information, accessibility, privacy censorship and control, customisation ofinformation products, the development of the World Wide Web, artificial intelligence and cybernetics, changes in working roles and structures of organisations, information literacy, information overload and the organisation and retrieval of information.

0.0046684234 = product of:
  0.01400527 = sum of:
    0.01400527 = product of:
      0.02801054 = sum of:
        0.02801054 = weight(_text_:of in 3000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02801054 = score(doc=3000,freq=70.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.40885413 = fieldWeight in 3000, product of:
              8.3666 = tf(freq=70.0), with freq of:
                70.0 = termFreq=70.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3000)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper discusses the ontology of the document and questions whether or not our understanding of the concept of a document has changed now that more and more information is transmitted through increasingly digital means. Moreover, the argument is advanced that the identity of librarians is bound up with the future of the document. Not merely should librarians be changing their roles as a reaction to new technologies but they need to be proactive in embracing change and not in any way resisting it. The paper focuses on the theory of the ontology of documents. A number of ideas will be discussed including the thoughts of Michael Buckland in his seminal paper 'What is a Document' (1997), and further discussion will draw on the work of Michel Foucault (1972), Ludwig Wittgenstein (1958, 1969) and more recently Ziming Liu (2004) among others. Is the concept of a document essentially the same or has the transformation of document to e-document brought about a fundamental change in its nature. The paper goes on to discuss the more practical nature of documents and the role of the librarian. There follows a brief review of a range of types of document, including: E-journals, E-books, and considers the prospect that Extensible Markup Language (XML) offers a technological vehicle for the advent of an E-collection - this being an aggregation of different document mediums. The notion of the delivery of this information to the user (consumer) is then considered and with it the role of librarian. Waaijers (2002) has argued that a consequence of digitisation has brought with it issues of ownership and responsibility, and refers to XML as offering the possibility of "anatomising the internal structure of the document." In the concluding part to this paper some speculative thoughts are advanced on what might be possible outcomes regarding the changing perceptions of what a document might be. Could the Modern Librarian's identity and function be inextricably linked to the concept of the document? Finally it is suggested that further research to gather empirical evidence could involve a comparative study of the providers of information and the users of information focussing on their respective concepts of a document.

Source

Librarianship in the information age: Proceedings of the 13th BOBCATSSS Symposium, 31 January - 2 February 2005 in Budapest, Hungary. Eds.: Marte Langeland u.a

0.004175565 = product of:
  0.012526695 = sum of:
    0.012526695 = product of:
      0.02505339 = sum of:
        0.02505339 = weight(_text_:of in 752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02505339 = score(doc=752,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.36569026 = fieldWeight in 752, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=752)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The current and future applications and implications of the Internet within and for libraries are indicated. Aspects of the virtual library are considered, followed by the impact of the Internet on aspects of library holdings. Features of online access, including search engine performance, are noted and collection development effects pointed out. Security issues, including pornography and copyright are described, and finally future implications of the Internet for libraries, through home versus library use and discussion groups, and influences on the Internet of library science are discussed.

0.003925761 = product of:
  0.011777283 = sum of:
    0.011777283 = product of:
      0.023554565 = sum of:
        0.023554565 = weight(_text_:of in 1086) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023554565 = score(doc=1086,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 1086, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1086)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This thought piece on the future of cataloging is long on musings and short on predictions. But that isn't to denigrate it, only to clarify it's role given the possible connotations of the title. Rather than coming up with solutions or predictions, Marcum ponders the proper role of cataloging in a Google age. Marcum cites the Google project to digitize much or all of the contents of a selected set of major research libraries as evidence that the world of cataloging is changing dramatically, and she briefly identifies ways in which the Library of Congress is responding to this new environment. But, Marcum cautions, "the future of cataloging is not something that the Library of Congress, or even the small library group with which we will meet, can or expects to resolve alone." She then poses some specific questions that should be considered, including how we can massively change our current MARC/AACR2 system without creating chaos

0.0036536194 = product of:
  0.010960858 = sum of:
    0.010960858 = product of:
      0.021921717 = sum of:
        0.021921717 = weight(_text_:of in 262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021921717 = score(doc=262,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 262, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=262)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Under the leadership of Ruth Carter's generation, cooperative, shared cataloging grew and flourished among academic and research libraries. The authors provide an overview of trends and challenges from a golden age of expanding budgets and international cooperation during the 1970's and 1980's and later responses to the economic retrenchment and demographic changes of the 1990's and early 2000's. Responses to current challenges, including the impact of outsourced cataloging, increasing complexity of cataloging rules, and emerging technological options, are discussed.

Footnote

Simultaneously published as Cataloger, Editor, and Scholar: Essays in Honor of Ruth C. Carter

0.0035509837 = product of:
  0.010652951 = sum of:
    0.010652951 = product of:
      0.021305902 = sum of:
        0.021305902 = weight(_text_:of in 618) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021305902 = score(doc=618,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 618, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=618)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - To argue that theoretical models from non-LIS disciplines can be of practical benefit to practitioner LIS research. In the area of digitisation collection development policy, such models highlight the importance of digital library preservation issues. Design/methodology/approach - An application of formal models from cultural theories derived from structuralism and semiotics to LIS problems. Findings - Theoretical models from non-LIS disciplines help illustrate and understand problems such as developing information literacy in the digital library environment or creating a balance between the need to develop new digital collections and the preservation of the digital collections which have already been created. Research limitations/implications - This is a theoretical argument that could be tested by practical case study investigation. Practical implications - The paper suggests that resourcing should be applied to digital preservation activity rather than a fresh round of digitisation of print originals, the preservation implications of which are uncertain. Originality/value - This paper gives some original perspectives on practical LIS challenges by applying abstract ideas from the area of cultural theory and applied linguistics.

0.0034976997 = product of:
  0.010493099 = sum of:
    0.010493099 = product of:
      0.020986198 = sum of:
        0.020986198 = weight(_text_:22 in 524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020986198 = score(doc=524,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.13679022 = fieldWeight in 524, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=524)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

26. 4.2002 11:22:22

0.0034625463 = product of:
  0.010387639 = sum of:
    0.010387639 = product of:
      0.020775277 = sum of:
        0.020775277 = weight(_text_:22 in 3556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020775277 = score(doc=3556,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 3556, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3556)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 7.2004 9:42:33

0.0034509364 = product of:
  0.010352809 = sum of:
    0.010352809 = product of:
      0.020705618 = sum of:
        0.020705618 = weight(_text_:of in 3073) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020705618 = score(doc=3073,freq=68.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.30222827 = fieldWeight in 3073, product of:
              8.246211 = tf(freq=68.0), with freq of:
                68.0 = termFreq=68.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3073)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

"MONDION, France - One warm afternoon in the late 19th century, two middle-aged office clerks met an the same bench of the Boulevard Bourdon in Paris and, immediately became the best of friends. Bouvard and Pécuchet (the names Gustave Flaubert gave to his two comic heroes) discovered through their friendship a common purpose: the pursuit of universal knowledge: To achieve this ambitious goal, they attempted to read every thing they could find on every branch of human endeavor and, from their readings, cull the most outstanding facts and ideas. Flaubert's death in 1880 put an end to their enterprise, which was in essence endiess, but not before the two brave explorers had read their way through many learned volumes an agriculture, literature, animal husbandry, medicine, archeology and politics, always with disappointing results. What Flaubert's two Clowns discovered is what we have always known but seldom believed: that the accumulation of knowledge isn't knowledge. The desire to know everything an earth and in heaven is so ancient that one of the earliest accounts of this ambition is already a cautionary-tale. According to the 11th chapter of Genesis, after the Flood, the people of the earth journeyed east, to the land of Shinar, and decided to build a City and a tower that would reach the heavns. According to the Sanhedrin (the council of Jewish elders set up in Jerusalem in the first century), the place rohere the tower once rose never lost its peculiar quality and whoever passes it forgets all he knows. Years ago, I was shown a small hill of rubble outside the walls of Babylon and told that this was all that remained of Babel.
If Babel symbolized our incommensurate ambition, the Library of Alexandria showed how this Ambition might be achieved. Set up by Ptolemy I in the third century B.C., it was meant to hold every book an every imaginable subject. To ensure that no title escaped its vast catalog. a royal decree ordered that any book brought into the City was to be confiscated and copied; only then would the original (sometimes the copy) be returned. A curious document from the second century B.C., the perhaps apocryphal "Letter of Aristeas," recounts the library's origins. To assemble a universal library (says the letter), King Ptolemy wrote "to all the sovereigns and governors an earth" begging them to send to him every kind of book by every kind of author, "poets and prose writers, rhetoricians and sophists, doctors and soothsayers, historians and all others, too." The king's librarians calculated that they required 500.000 scrolls if they were to collect in Alexandria "all the books of all the peoples of the world." But even this (by our standards) modest stock of a half-million books was too much for any reader. The librarians of Alexandria devised a system of annotated catalogs for which they chose works, they deemed especially important, and appended a brief description to each title - one of the earliest "recommended reading" lists. In Alexandria, it became clear that the greater your ambition, the narrower your scope. But our ambition persists recently, the most popular Internet search service. Google, announced that it had concluded agreements with several leading research libraries to make some of their books available online to researchers.
The practical arguments for such a step are irrefutable: quantity, speed, precision, on-demand availability are no doubt important to the scholar: And new technologies need not be exclusionary. The invention of photography did not eliminate painting, it renewed it, and no doubt the screen and the reference books can feed oft Bach other and coexist amicably an the same reader's desk. All we need to do is remember the corollaries tethe arguments in favor of a virtual library:" that reading, in orderto allow reflection, requires slowness, depth and context; that leafing through a material book or roaming through material shelves is an intimate part of the craft; that the omnipresent electronic technology is still fragile and that, as it changes. we keep losing the possibility of retrieving that which was once stored in now outdated containers. We can still read the words an papyrus ashes saved from the charred ruins of Pompeii; we don't know for how lung it will be possible to read a text inscribed in a 2004 CD. This is not a complaint just a reminder. Jorge Luis Berges invented a Bouvard-and-Pécuchet-like charafter who tries to compile a universal encyclopedia so complete that nothing world be excluded from it. In the end, like his French forerunners, he falls. but not entirely. On the evening an which he gives up bis great project. he hires. a horse and buggy and takes a tour of the city. He sees brick walls, ordinary people. houses, a river, a marketplace and feels that somehow all these things are his own work. He realizes that his project was not impossible but merely redundant. The world encyclopedia, the universal library, already exists and is the world itself."

Footnote

Beilage zur Süddeutschen Zeitung. - Mit einer Abbildung: The Library of Alexandria, established in the third century B.C., amassed an imposing collection of 500.000 books.

0.003382594 = product of:
  0.010147782 = sum of:
    0.010147782 = product of:
      0.020295564 = sum of:
        0.020295564 = weight(_text_:of in 4788) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020295564 = score(doc=4788,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 4788, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4788)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The author takes on the assertion posed in recent educational articles that technology is driving down book circulation and contributing to the decline of reading-center learning. In his interview with Richard Cochran, Dean of the Ferris State University Library for Information, Technology, and Education, the two discuss the importance of incorporating technology to support all types of learning, and using faculty buy-in to insure that as many media as possible are integrated into the final building design.

Content

Part of a Special Issue: Accessibility of web-based information resources for people with disabilities: part 2. Vgl. auch unter: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/07378830210452668.

0.003382594 = product of:
  0.010147782 = sum of:
    0.010147782 = product of:
      0.020295564 = sum of:
        0.020295564 = weight(_text_:of in 704) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020295564 = score(doc=704,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 704, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=704)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

A review of the future of academic libraries that draws initially on a generic model to describe the components of all library systems. Touches upon some economic changes and looks for evidence in statistical trends derived from United Kingdom reportage. From this extrapolates scenarios relating to the function of libraries as a collection of resources, as a physical place, its role in organising information and its service function. Library collections will continue to exist but described in different ways, whilst physical collections will mutate into multi-functional spaces. Knowledge management will become increasingly important and the overriding shift will be towards a service and support role. The librarian's role is also discussed and changes summarised.

0.003382594 = product of:
  0.010147782 = sum of:
    0.010147782 = product of:
      0.020295564 = sum of:
        0.020295564 = weight(_text_:of in 1299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020295564 = score(doc=1299,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 1299, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1299)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In this research study, Nemertes performed an independent in-depth analysis of Internet and IP infrastructure (which we call capacity) and current and projected traffic (which we call demand) with the goal of understanding how each has changed over time, and determining if there will ever be a point at which demand exceeds capacity. To assess infrastructure capacity, we reviewed details of carrier expenditures and vendor revenues, and compared these against market research studies. To compute demand, we took a unique approach: Instead of modeling user behavior based on measuring the application portfolios that users had currently deployed, and projecting deployment of those applications in future, we looked directly at how user consumption of available bandwidth has changed over time.

0.0032951736 = product of:
  0.009885521 = sum of:
    0.009885521 = product of:
      0.019771041 = sum of:
        0.019771041 = weight(_text_:of in 3099) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019771041 = score(doc=3099,freq=62.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.2885868 = fieldWeight in 3099, product of:
              7.8740077 = tf(freq=62.0), with freq of:
                62.0 = termFreq=62.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3099)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Google's massive online reading room will digitize the collections of several major libraries, including millions of volumes from the University of Michigan.

Content

"When Randall C. Jimerson, the president of the Society of American Archivists, heard of Google's plan to convert certain holdings at Oxford University and at some of the leading research libraries in the United States into digital files, searchable over the Web, he asked, "What are they thinking?" Mr. Jimerson had worries. Who would select the material? How would it be organized and identified to avoid mountains of excerpts taken out of context? Would Google users eventually forgo the experience of holding a book or looking at a historicaldocument? But in recent interviews, many scholars and librarians applauded the announcement by Google, the operator of the world's most popular Internet search service, to digitize some of the collections at Oxford, the University of Michigan, Stanford University, Harvard and the New York Public Library. The plan, in the words of Paul Duguid, information specialist at the University of California at Berkeley, will "blast wide open" the walls around the libraries of world-class institutions.
David Nasaw, a historian and director of the Center for the Humanities at the City University of New York's Graduate Center, said the ability to use keywords to locate books and documents could save academics traveltime and money and broaden their research. "This all captures people's imagination in a wonderful way," Said Kate Wittenberg, director of the Electronic Publishing Initiative at Columbia University. "But whether it's right or wrong is not the whole question and not the whole answer." This year Ms. Wittenberg's group completed a three-year study of research habits that included 1,233 students. The study concluded that electronic resources had become the main tool for gathering information, particularly among undergraduates. But Ms. Wittenberg does have concerns. "What I've learned is that libraries help people formulate questions as well as find answers," Ms. Wittenberg said. "Who will do that in a virtual world?" On the other hand, she Said, an enhanced databank could make it easier for students to research topics across disciplines. For example, a topic like "climate change" touches an both political science and science, she Said, and "in the physical world, the books about them are in two different buildings at Columbia." Online research could bring the two subjects together instantly. Robert Darnton, a professor of history at Princeton who is writing a book about the history of books, noted that by looking at a book's binding and paper quality, a researcher can discern much about the period in which it was published, the publisher and the intended audience.
"There may be some false consciousnesses about this breakthrough, that all learning will be at our fingertips," Mr. Darnton said of the plans to enhance Google's database. He saw room for both Google and real-world research. Libraries have already been changed by the Internet, said Paul LeClerc, president and chief executive of the New York Public Library: But libraries will still be needed to coliect and store information, he said. "TV did replace radio," Mr. LeCIerc said. "Videos and DVD's did not replace people going to the movies. It's still easier to read a book by hand than online." "The New-York Public Library Web site gets three-fourths of a billion hits a year from 200 different countries and territories, and that's with no marketing or advertising," he said. "That's the context in which this new element has to be placed." "We had 13 million reader visits last year," he continued. "We're serving a multiplicity of audiences - we serve people physically and virtually. It's an enormous contribution to human intellectual development." Many university leaders realize that for most people, information does not exist unless it is online, said Paul Courant, provost and executive vice president for academic affairs at the University of Michigan. Mr. Courant envisioned that in 20 years archives would be shared by institutions. While the world needs "tens of thousands of copies of 'To the Lighthouse,"' he said, "we don't need to have a zillion copies of some arcane monograph written by a sociologist in 1951."

0.0031564306 = product of:
  0.009469291 = sum of:
    0.009469291 = product of:
      0.018938582 = sum of:
        0.018938582 = weight(_text_:of in 5194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018938582 = score(doc=5194,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 5194, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5194)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Information tends to define community. Garfield reminisces about the reprint-sharing culture of science in the 1950s, and anticipates the digital full-text documents of the future.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.1, S.18-21